FilmNation Not Alone In Contracting Scarlett Fever

The flood of AFM project packages has started (how many of them actually happen is a question for another day), and FilmNation has announced it will handle international sales for the Jonathan Glazer-directed Under the Skin. Scarlett Johansson has been attached to star in the science fiction film scripted by Walter Campbell and Glazer, the latter of whom directed Sexy Beast. She plays an alien on earth, disguised as a mesmerizing woman who uses her voracious sexuality to scour remote highways and desolate scenery to snare human prey. It’s based on a Michel Faber novel. Said FilmNation CEO Glen Basner: “We’re so excited to be working on this arrestingly original movie. How could we pass up the chance to work with a visionary director like Jonathan, especially when combined with the intriguing notion of Scarlett Johansson as a ruthless alien seductress?” Nick Wechsler is producing with James Wilson and Film4’s Tessa Ross is exec producing and the UK Film Council and Scottish Screen are also involved.

FilmNation hopes to get started in the spring, but they haven’t been the only one who’s noticed Johansson. She’s in the mix for Baz Luhrmann’s The Great Gatsby, Lionsgate wanted her for Pride, Prejudice and Zombies. Most pressing, she’s front runner to star for Cameron Crowe opposite Matt Damon in We Bought A Zoo at Fox.

25 Comments

IM • on Nov 3, 2010 10:14 am

SPECIES reboot?

Here In Flyover • on Nov 3, 2010 10:14 am

That’s exactly what I was thinking, IM.

What’s so “original” about an alien disguised as a sexy human? Not only was it the idea in Species but also of V (the series), Terminator 3 (okay, technically she was a robot in that one), and probably a dozen or more that I haven’t mentioned.

I guess the problem isn’t that it’s been done so many times before but that the producers probably actually believe it really is original. I guess that’s what happens when “money people”, who really care nothing about movies, make movies.

Joyce Tyler • on Nov 3, 2010 10:14 am

Here’s a summary of the book on which the film is based–hardly a Species reboot:

“Isserley picks up hitchhikers with big muscles. She, herself, is tiny-like a kid peering up over the steering wheel. She has a remarkable face and wears the thickest corrective lenses anyone has ever seen. Her posture is suggestive of some spinal problem. Her breasts are perfect; perhaps implants. She is strangely erotic yet somehow grotesque, vulnerable yet threatening. Her hitchhikers are a mixed bunch of men-trailer trash and travelling postgrads, thugs and philosophers. But Isserley is only interested in whether they have families and whether they have muscles. Then, it’s only a question of how long she can endure her pain-physical and spiritual-and their conversation. Michel Faber’s work has been described as a combination of Roald Dahl and Franz Kafka, as Somerset Maugham shacking up with Ian McEwan. At once humane and horrifying, Under the Skin takes us on a heart-thumping ride through dangerous territory-our own moral instincts and the boundaries of compassion. A grotesque and comical allegory….”

kt • on Nov 3, 2010 10:14 am

Hollyweird never ceases to amaze me ! Scarlett Johansson cannot act and she is not a box-office sensation. What is truly disturbing how this lady is constantly pursued for movie roles. Johansson is one of the luckiest and overrated young actress in Hollyweird.

Kara • on Nov 3, 2010 10:14 am

but notice how she hasn’t gotten ANY of the roles she’s been a ‘front-runner’ for. It’s all smokes and mirrors right now. I think people have finally managed to see past the hoax. Her team are just managing to put her name on everything trying to make her look wanted.

She can play the hot chick, that’s all she’s good for. She should leave the heavier roles for the real actresses

C • on Nov 3, 2010 10:14 am

Kara,

Don’t be so stupid as to think Scarlett or her team are putting her name in the bucket. The PR firms that hold onto these actresses (again, Scarlett isn’t the only one that is listed multiple times – it’s all of A-list young female Hollywood – namely Scarlett, Natalie, Keira…) are the ones that have their names published.

Scarlett doesn’t need to have her name attached to anything for publicity.

And a Tony award winning actress has the pick of the litter.

Badum • on Nov 3, 2010 10:14 am

She just won a Tony award for a highly acclaimed theatrical – you might not like her but that’s a serious calling card for film roles.

Also Love Song For Bobby Long, Lost in Translation, Girl With a Pearl Earring – all excellent performances of her.

Captain Awesome • on Nov 3, 2010 10:14 am

So it’s a reboot of Species?

Kara • on Nov 3, 2010 10:14 am

How much is ScarJos team paying people to put her name in every casting rumor there is?

C • on Nov 3, 2010 10:14 am

Kara,

Probably the same amount that Natalie, Keira and Blake Lively’s teams are paying… idiot.

c • on Nov 3, 2010 10:14 am

I don’t know – how much is Natalie, Keira and Rachel’s teams paying to have their names put into the papers? Newsflash – Scarlett is better than you in every way imaginable.

me • on Nov 3, 2010 10:14 am

No, it’s not s Species reboot at all. It’s very, very different. I don’t want to spoil the book for anyone, but the alien character does not actually kill anyone; she is more of an enticement agent for a large scale operation and she is as much a pawn as any of the captured humans. It’s a really freaky, weird book and could be a disturbing, unique sci-fi film if done right.

Lev • on Nov 3, 2010 10:14 am

I think Scarlett is a fine actress. She was completely believable and very un-actor-like, noticeably so, in “Lost in Translation” and in “Wimbledon,” to name just two.

Settle down ‘Captain Awesome’. I agree with ‘Me’, its not a reboot of Species its a more complex plot and the use of seduction by the central character is just used as a mechanism to a deeper bigger scarier issue. Michel Faber the author is a very rich and original writer and he belongs more in the literature writing category, than a pulp / blockbuster fiction, so expect a richer canvass with the characters of ‘Under the Skin’ than the 2 dimensional characters of ‘Species’. There is also a rich emotional dimension here with ‘Under the Skin’ plus conflicting ethics and a truckload of irony. To say more would produce a spoiler. This story has a kind of art house aspect to it as well (or at least the book does). As a space captain myself (not a space cadet) and having seen almost every Sci Film ever made, I can promise you that this book has some original Sci-Fi elements, that if done right will enthrall us and become a cult classic.

SimRah • on Nov 3, 2010 10:14 am

I meant to add that I read the book about a year ago and loved it, but it haunted me for 3 months afterwards, I couldn’t stop thinking about the central character and who she interacts with in the book, it was like a real yet alien world in my mind (like the same effect that other Sci-Fi classic stories have on us), but alien because of the characters perspective (because the story is set on earth). I think this film will be very refreshing as long as the director can bring out the deeper emotional layer and challenging social landscape of the film.

believe it or not • on Nov 3, 2010 10:14 am

ScarJo is DEFINITELY doing the Cameron Crowe picture at Fox and then is DEFINITELY off to do Avengers. There is no way in the world that this Glazer thing is ever going to happen with her and people are on crack if they think otherwise.(Like the way I use DEFINITELY as though anythin in Hollywood is definite. Ha). Why would anyone think that having her name attached to everything is a good thing?

yep • on Nov 3, 2010 10:14 am

The film won’t ever get made because it’s sci-fi with elements of an art house film. DOA at the B.O. It’s a good announcement for FilmNation PR and she’ll look good on the poster. Does Scarlett really mean much for foreign sales? Should have gone with Milla.

Jack • on Nov 3, 2010 10:14 am

Does anyone know if Joss Whedon is retweaking Zakk Penn’s script or did he throw out Zakk Penn’s script and starting over?

herbiefrog • on Nov 3, 2010 10:14 am

she’s ve r y p r e tty : ))

TB • on Nov 3, 2010 10:14 am

The first movie I saw Johansson in was “The Horse Whisperer.” I had no idea who she was at the time, but I was very impressed. She did a great job in a role that Natalie Portman was originally set to inhabit. Redford might just be the actor whisperer, but I don’t think that’s it. You watch that movie and there’s no denying she’s gifted, it’s just a question of how she got to a place where people are somehow now soured on her.

Stephanie • on Nov 3, 2010 10:14 am

@Tb I completely agree. I find myself agreeing with those who say she can’t act until I remember that movie. She definitely hasn’t had an intriguing role since Lost In Translation. She was AMAZING in The Horse Whisperer; she definitely held her own with Robert Redford & Kristin Scott Thomas. At least in movies like Ghost World & Perfect Score, she played a different character over than the sexy adultress. It will be interesting to see what happens with her career..

kate • on Nov 3, 2010 10:14 am

I think Scarlett has exactly 3 expressions she uses for every role. maybe she would make a good robot or alien.